Get automation instance status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantics by contrasting 'high-level status' with detailed output, but says nothing about how fresh the status is, whether results are scoped by org, or any polling semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the alternative named second. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a simple read with an output schema, so return values need not be explained; the critical distinction from the output tool is present. What is missing is only the relationship to the other instance-related siblings, which is a minor gap given the low complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (org_id, instance_id, response_format) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the high-level status of one automation instance') and scopes it to a single instance. It distinguishes itself from the stdout/output sibling, but not from other nearby siblings like action1_get_automation_instance or action1_get_automation_results, leaving some ambiguity about what 'status' covers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent to action1_get_automation_output for stdout, which is a clear when-to-use alternative. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over action1_get_automation_instance or action1_list_automation_instances, so the routing is only partially complete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.